[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Proposal on new Meta Manifest due to last call'sdiscussion
Hi Bruce, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > A few issues with this example: > > <dct:hasPart> > <odf:Element odf:idref="someID"> > <owl:sameAs > rdf:resource="afdc453c-5dc8-4988-8dab-fc378bd9e73d"/> > <owl:sameAs > rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/> > </odf:Element> > </dct:hasPart> > > First, you need a "urn:uuid" in front of those uuids. Correct, these are generated UUID without the URN prefix "urn:uuid:". > > Second, why the owl:sameAs properties? The RDF/XML files use IRIs for ODF elements, right? The IRI of such an ODF element is binded the content ODF XML element by using odf:Element with a certain odf:idref referencing to an xml:id, which is part of a certain odf:File. Therefore the odf:element is identical (owl:sameAs) to one of those IRIs being used. Although we could say as well: <dct:hasPart> <odf:Element rdf:about="urn:uuid:043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66" odf:idref="someID"/> </dct:hasPart> > > Third, this ... > > <dct:references> > <odf:Element > rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/> > </dct:references> > > ... is incorrect. Should be: > > <dct:references > rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/> Yes, of course. After doing these fixes, don't you think it is more verbose than mixing Manifest and ODF nodes as we did before? Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]